Toronto 41-45 Spadina Road | 55.5m | 15s | ProWinko | a—A

sitruc said:
The city does not need 35+ story towers at every corner. It's time to spread density more evenly throughout the city, instead of cramming everything into a few areas.
Click to expand...
Yeah...to be clear, this dodgy proposal from ProWinko shouldn't be used as an excuse to dissuade needed density around transit hubs as mentioned previously. Although, I agree this doesn't stop bad actors in the industry taking advantage of that. Hopefully, our public vetting process for all it's "quirks" will weed those out. Hopefully... >.<
 
SonyPayStation said:
Less density near transit. Got it.
Click to expand...
Don't be so hyperbolic. The Annex already has great density. There are lots of other transit nodes in Toronto with endless single family homes that could easily be redeveloped. Additional density shouldn't constantly come at the expense of our heritage, especially when there's literally a surface parking lot down the street from Spadina Gardens.
 
Much of the surface parking lots are slated for development near and around that transit hub intersection though. And for what that's worth.
 
sitruc said:
Don't be so hyperbolic. The Annex already has great density. There are lots of other transit nodes in Toronto with endless single family homes that could easily be redeveloped. Additional density shouldn't constantly come at the expense of our heritage, especially when there's literally a surface parking lot down the street from Spadina Gardens.
Click to expand...

That's City-owned for access to transit. There isn't "great density." There's some. And few stations are north-south interchanges. Three are, to be exact and thus one has less than them all.
 
SonyPayStation said:
That's City-owned for access to transit. There isn't "great density." There's some. And few stations are north-south interchanges. Three are, to be exact and thus one has less than them all.
Click to expand...
Toronto population density maps (link and attached photo):

ArcGIS Web Application

www.arcgis.com www.arcgis.com

Developing a city owned surface parking lot next to transit that can table over the existing tunnels or developing a heritage property.... hmmm... tough choice....

Majority of houses in the Annex contain several apartments and lots of mid-rise apartment buildings throughout the area. This is a neighbourhood with wonderful 'missing middle' type housing. Let's not forget the numerous 30+ story towers either U/C or in the pipeline around Bloor and Spadina. Like I said, the Annex already has great density. Why pack people in like sardines in Hong Kong when there are tons of other logical places for development throughout Toronto.
icy0ezglc2xy91.png
 
A lot of people don't realize how dense a lot of low-rise neighbourhoods are in the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto. The streets are narrower, the front yards and backyards are smaller, the setbacks between buildings are small or non-existent, there's little surface parking, etc. Many single-family houses have been subdivided into apartments. Yet people look at them and think that the density must be as low as a recent subdivision in Vaughan.
 
junctionist said:
A lot of people don't realize how dense a lot of low-rise neighbourhoods are in the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto.
Click to expand...

While this is true to a point, density in Toronto is strongly correlated with apartment buildings. In the Annex, a handful of blocks with towers has the bulk of the density. And overall the neighbourhood is far less dense than Yonge-Bloor.

Density 2016:

IMG_0394.jpeg


IMG_0386.jpeg


The Annex also has fewer people than it did in 1971 and continues to shrink. The only growth is where there are apartments and where new apartments are getting built. Change in population 1971-2016:

IMG_0393.jpeg


IMG_0388.jpeg


Maps via censusmapper.
 
Last edited:
The broader issue is that Ontario has to justify transit investment with intense densities. Other countries manage frequent high order transit within Annex densities.

The strong neighbourhood connection should be at the forefront of the conversation and not that it hasn't grown in population since build out. I understand if you're a proponent of Toronto/GTA requiring to continue to add hundreds of thousands to millions of people through intensification of the urban area. Neighbourhood block busting plus tall tower nodes in key transit corridors is required. However, I think that is a small minority of us that look forward to that reinvented Toronto.
 
maestro said:
The strong neighbourhood connection should be at the forefront of the conversation and not that it hasn't grown in population since build out
Click to expand...

It’s not just that it “hasn’t grown” - it has shrunk dramatically and continues to shrink.

The annex is really two neighborhoods: an expanse of increasingly empty, expensive houses, and small pockets of apartments where the majority of the people live.
 
I would say that the emptying expanse of expensive SFH's is a common trend for many adjacent neighbourhoods as you head in a westward direction. From the Annex to Seaton Village, Christie Pits, Dovercourt Village, Wallace Emerson, etc. As the children of these households continue to be pushed out due to the unaffordability to remain in these communities, these areas will become increasingly like "seniors" areas.

Some other areas like Davenport West, Dufferin Grove, Roncy/Sorauren, and the Junction have seen some revitalization or influx of new residents in the past decade or so. But even in those areas, they might only be treading water in terms of the population replacement rate, or still on the slightly underperforming side. That along with often these new residents are living in newer higher density developments instead of the traditional SFH housing stock anyways.
 
AlbertC said:
I would say that the emptying expanse of expensive SFH's is a common trend for many adjacent neighbourhoods as you head in a westward direction. From the Annex to Seaton Village, Christie Pits, Dovercourt Village, Wallace Emerson, etc. As the children of these households continue to be pushed out due to the unaffordability to remain in these communities, these areas will become increasingly like "seniors" areas.

Some other areas like Davenport West, Dufferin Grove, Roncy/Sorauren, and the Junction have seen some revitalization or influx of new residents in the past decade or so. But even in those areas, they might only be treading water in terms of the population replacement rate, or still on the slightly underperforming side. That along with often these new residents are living in newer higher density developments instead of the traditional SFH housing stock anyways.
Click to expand...

The re-consolidation of the SFHs in the old city has been going on for awhile - the only way to counter that trend is to re-intensify. Economic viability of this project aside, what's proposed here isn't a bad way to add density without totally destroying the existing fabric - and is broadly in-line with some of the re-intensification projects from the 1970s (though admittedly aimed at a rather different demographic).

AoD
 
This is all true however the zoning in these areas has recently changed so there should be some movement to more intense forms.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top